IN RE: MARK H. ALLENBAUGH, Respondent.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-BG-6 IN RE: MARK H. ALLENBAUGH, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 471455 BEFORE: BDN: 300-14 Beckwith, Associate Judge, and King and Reid, Senior Judges. ORDER (FILED - May 7, 2015) On consideration of the certified order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that suspended respondent for a period of two years with reinstatement contingent on him paying the imposed fine and showing his ability to comply with court rules, this court’s January 21, 2015, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of a two-year suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause or a D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit, it is ORDERED that Mark H. Allenbaugh is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of two years. Reinstatement is subject to the conditions imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and a showing of fitness. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s period of suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g). PER CURIAM

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.